User login
You have ‘unique expertise’ to treat opioid use disorder in adolescents
ORLANDO – according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We pediatricians have some unique skills that can really benefit our community of teens,” said Deepa Camenga, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Compared with some other specialists, who may be more reluctant to prescribe buprenorphine, pediatricians are more comfortable and have systems in place to deal with issues surrounding care coordination, adolescent confidentiality, family reassurance, and managing prescriptions for chronic diseases.“We can use those same skills when we’re caring for people with opioid use disorder,” she said.
According to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual–5), there are 11 criteria for opioid use disorder based on level of physiological dependence, impaired control, social functioning, and risky use. Meeting two or three criteria constitutes mild substance use disorder, while meeting six or more criteria is associated with severe substance use disorder.
Opioid use disorder in adolescents can be characterized by milder symptoms. Adolescents also tend to be in the early stage of this chronic disease when they seek care for opioid use disorder and need to be informed about the seriousness of the disease, Dr. Camenga noted.
“There is a disconnect about the severity of their illness when they present to me,” she said. “This is a disease that we know is chronic, severe – and without treatment – is progressive. We do know it can progress and get worse, and result in death.”
Treatment options for opioid use disorder in adolescents include behavioral interventions such as residential treatment, intensive outpatient (IOP), and partial hospitalization programs and therapy, as well as pharmacologic interventions like clonidine, buprenorphine, and methadone used for detoxification. Buprenorphine/naloxone has been labeled for use by patients 18 years or older; however, three recent randomized controlled trials have studied the effects of the intervention in 16-year-old and 17-year-old patients. In the trials, there were no serious adverse events reported with support of treatment for a minimum of 12 weeks and “many providers are treating up to a year” based on data from observational studies, Dr. Camenga said. Naltrexone also has been indicated for adolescents with opioid use disorder, with feasibility seen in pilot studies.
If you are interested in providing buprenorphine for patients, you need to apply for a Drug Enforcement Administration X-waiver, have access to their state’s prescription-monitoring program, and have a network of behavioral health providers for therapy and counseling, as well as psychiatrists for evaluation and treatment of other psychiatric disorders. Familiarity with naloxone overdose prevention training also is beneficial.
In addition, you must undergo 8 hours of training and apply for a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in general medication settings. You can receive ongoing support after training on the AAP and Providers Clinical Support System websites.
Adolescent patients who receive buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder typically undergo induction for 2 days where they are observed by a nurse or provider followed by weekly or biweekly medication-monitoring visits. It is “highly recommended” adolescents take urine drug screens during these visits but the results do not need to be observed. Many patients begin treatment when they are in IOP care, but some patients are not identified until they’ve had more severe consequences of opioid use disorder. Parents are involved in care by providing transportation and picking up and helping to administer medication, but there are confidential portions of the visits with the patient only.
“Parents have to be intimately involved and aware, and that’s an ideal situation,” Dr. Camenga said.
Dr. Camenga reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We pediatricians have some unique skills that can really benefit our community of teens,” said Deepa Camenga, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Compared with some other specialists, who may be more reluctant to prescribe buprenorphine, pediatricians are more comfortable and have systems in place to deal with issues surrounding care coordination, adolescent confidentiality, family reassurance, and managing prescriptions for chronic diseases.“We can use those same skills when we’re caring for people with opioid use disorder,” she said.
According to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual–5), there are 11 criteria for opioid use disorder based on level of physiological dependence, impaired control, social functioning, and risky use. Meeting two or three criteria constitutes mild substance use disorder, while meeting six or more criteria is associated with severe substance use disorder.
Opioid use disorder in adolescents can be characterized by milder symptoms. Adolescents also tend to be in the early stage of this chronic disease when they seek care for opioid use disorder and need to be informed about the seriousness of the disease, Dr. Camenga noted.
“There is a disconnect about the severity of their illness when they present to me,” she said. “This is a disease that we know is chronic, severe – and without treatment – is progressive. We do know it can progress and get worse, and result in death.”
Treatment options for opioid use disorder in adolescents include behavioral interventions such as residential treatment, intensive outpatient (IOP), and partial hospitalization programs and therapy, as well as pharmacologic interventions like clonidine, buprenorphine, and methadone used for detoxification. Buprenorphine/naloxone has been labeled for use by patients 18 years or older; however, three recent randomized controlled trials have studied the effects of the intervention in 16-year-old and 17-year-old patients. In the trials, there were no serious adverse events reported with support of treatment for a minimum of 12 weeks and “many providers are treating up to a year” based on data from observational studies, Dr. Camenga said. Naltrexone also has been indicated for adolescents with opioid use disorder, with feasibility seen in pilot studies.
If you are interested in providing buprenorphine for patients, you need to apply for a Drug Enforcement Administration X-waiver, have access to their state’s prescription-monitoring program, and have a network of behavioral health providers for therapy and counseling, as well as psychiatrists for evaluation and treatment of other psychiatric disorders. Familiarity with naloxone overdose prevention training also is beneficial.
In addition, you must undergo 8 hours of training and apply for a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in general medication settings. You can receive ongoing support after training on the AAP and Providers Clinical Support System websites.
Adolescent patients who receive buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder typically undergo induction for 2 days where they are observed by a nurse or provider followed by weekly or biweekly medication-monitoring visits. It is “highly recommended” adolescents take urine drug screens during these visits but the results do not need to be observed. Many patients begin treatment when they are in IOP care, but some patients are not identified until they’ve had more severe consequences of opioid use disorder. Parents are involved in care by providing transportation and picking up and helping to administer medication, but there are confidential portions of the visits with the patient only.
“Parents have to be intimately involved and aware, and that’s an ideal situation,” Dr. Camenga said.
Dr. Camenga reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
ORLANDO – according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We pediatricians have some unique skills that can really benefit our community of teens,” said Deepa Camenga, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
Compared with some other specialists, who may be more reluctant to prescribe buprenorphine, pediatricians are more comfortable and have systems in place to deal with issues surrounding care coordination, adolescent confidentiality, family reassurance, and managing prescriptions for chronic diseases.“We can use those same skills when we’re caring for people with opioid use disorder,” she said.
According to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual–5), there are 11 criteria for opioid use disorder based on level of physiological dependence, impaired control, social functioning, and risky use. Meeting two or three criteria constitutes mild substance use disorder, while meeting six or more criteria is associated with severe substance use disorder.
Opioid use disorder in adolescents can be characterized by milder symptoms. Adolescents also tend to be in the early stage of this chronic disease when they seek care for opioid use disorder and need to be informed about the seriousness of the disease, Dr. Camenga noted.
“There is a disconnect about the severity of their illness when they present to me,” she said. “This is a disease that we know is chronic, severe – and without treatment – is progressive. We do know it can progress and get worse, and result in death.”
Treatment options for opioid use disorder in adolescents include behavioral interventions such as residential treatment, intensive outpatient (IOP), and partial hospitalization programs and therapy, as well as pharmacologic interventions like clonidine, buprenorphine, and methadone used for detoxification. Buprenorphine/naloxone has been labeled for use by patients 18 years or older; however, three recent randomized controlled trials have studied the effects of the intervention in 16-year-old and 17-year-old patients. In the trials, there were no serious adverse events reported with support of treatment for a minimum of 12 weeks and “many providers are treating up to a year” based on data from observational studies, Dr. Camenga said. Naltrexone also has been indicated for adolescents with opioid use disorder, with feasibility seen in pilot studies.
If you are interested in providing buprenorphine for patients, you need to apply for a Drug Enforcement Administration X-waiver, have access to their state’s prescription-monitoring program, and have a network of behavioral health providers for therapy and counseling, as well as psychiatrists for evaluation and treatment of other psychiatric disorders. Familiarity with naloxone overdose prevention training also is beneficial.
In addition, you must undergo 8 hours of training and apply for a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine in general medication settings. You can receive ongoing support after training on the AAP and Providers Clinical Support System websites.
Adolescent patients who receive buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder typically undergo induction for 2 days where they are observed by a nurse or provider followed by weekly or biweekly medication-monitoring visits. It is “highly recommended” adolescents take urine drug screens during these visits but the results do not need to be observed. Many patients begin treatment when they are in IOP care, but some patients are not identified until they’ve had more severe consequences of opioid use disorder. Parents are involved in care by providing transportation and picking up and helping to administer medication, but there are confidential portions of the visits with the patient only.
“Parents have to be intimately involved and aware, and that’s an ideal situation,” Dr. Camenga said.
Dr. Camenga reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
EXPERT ANALYSIS AT AAP 18
Some statins worse than others for musculoskeletal adverse event onset time
The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database Quarterly Data Files (Q1 2004 to Q3 2017) published by the FDA (downloaded in February 2018) was used to evaluate the adverse events associated with statin therapy. Among the seven statins looked at in this study, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin contributed to both the most cases of musculoskeletal adverse events and also to some of the shortest times to onset; atorvastatin was associated with 454 cases and a median time to onset of 24.5 days, and rosuvastatin was associated with 413 cases and a median time to onset of 30 days. Simvastatin also contributed to a large number of cases (409), but the median time to onset was significantly faster with the other two statins according to a Steel-Dwass test.
The study also looked at whether and how much concomitant use of nonstatin drugs affected time to onset, but it found that none of the drugs evaluated in the study had an effect on time to onset.
Read more about this study in Pharmacology Research & Perspectives.
The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database Quarterly Data Files (Q1 2004 to Q3 2017) published by the FDA (downloaded in February 2018) was used to evaluate the adverse events associated with statin therapy. Among the seven statins looked at in this study, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin contributed to both the most cases of musculoskeletal adverse events and also to some of the shortest times to onset; atorvastatin was associated with 454 cases and a median time to onset of 24.5 days, and rosuvastatin was associated with 413 cases and a median time to onset of 30 days. Simvastatin also contributed to a large number of cases (409), but the median time to onset was significantly faster with the other two statins according to a Steel-Dwass test.
The study also looked at whether and how much concomitant use of nonstatin drugs affected time to onset, but it found that none of the drugs evaluated in the study had an effect on time to onset.
Read more about this study in Pharmacology Research & Perspectives.
The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database Quarterly Data Files (Q1 2004 to Q3 2017) published by the FDA (downloaded in February 2018) was used to evaluate the adverse events associated with statin therapy. Among the seven statins looked at in this study, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin contributed to both the most cases of musculoskeletal adverse events and also to some of the shortest times to onset; atorvastatin was associated with 454 cases and a median time to onset of 24.5 days, and rosuvastatin was associated with 413 cases and a median time to onset of 30 days. Simvastatin also contributed to a large number of cases (409), but the median time to onset was significantly faster with the other two statins according to a Steel-Dwass test.
The study also looked at whether and how much concomitant use of nonstatin drugs affected time to onset, but it found that none of the drugs evaluated in the study had an effect on time to onset.
Read more about this study in Pharmacology Research & Perspectives.
FROM PHARMACOLOGY RESEARCH & PERSPECTIVES
Concerns over discretion, efficacy lead teen females to use emergency contraception
Emergency contraception is perceived as “easy, effective, and discrete,” especially when compared with nonemergent contraception and condoms, according to a qualitative study of contraceptive behaviors and decision making among adolescent females who had previously used emergency contraception (EC) or planned to use it.
“Three main themes emerged from our interviews: There are multiple perceived benefits to using EC, nonemergent contraception (NEC) use is challenging, and the decision to use NEC is multifactorial,” lead author Geetha N. Fink, MD, MPH, and her coauthors wrote in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology.
The investigators reviewed interview transcripts and questionnaire responses from 28 adolescent females who had all used or were planning to use EC. The participants, who were recruited from school-based health centers (SBHC) in New York, reported having used EC a mean of 3.5 times (range 0-30 times), noted Dr. Fink of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and her colleagues.
SBHCs in New York can distribute EC for free and – once general consent to care at the SBHC is provided at the start of each school year– without parental notification. This ease of access contributed to EC use, along with its minimal side effects. EC also can “be used discretely without the involvement of the partner,” Dr. Fink and her coauthors noted. Although the majority of participants stated being comfortable discussing their EC use, “they still appreciated that EC does not require partner involvement or awareness, unlike condoms or withdrawal.”
The participants’ decision making often was influenced by misperception; 65% incorrectly stated that EC was 90%-99% effective, and NEC use was ascribed to beliefs that “excess EC decreases efficacy or is detrimental to health and social interactions.” At the same time, Dr. Fink and her colleagues found that NEC use was associated with participants who had more sexual experience or who correctly identified it as more effective than EC.
“Our findings suggest that as adolescents gained more experience with sex and counseling, and also matured, they appeared to be more likely to utilize NEC,” they wrote.
Dr. Fink and her associates shared limitations of their study, including the uniqueness of SBHCs in New York City in providing comprehensive health care options, compared with those in the rest of the United States. However, they also noted the value in interviewing adolescent EC users and therefore better understanding why they’ve made these contraceptive decisions.
“We suspect many more students would benefit from access to EC and the SBHC, but may be unaware of these resources. We recommend increased efforts to promote awareness of these resources in schools, especially incorporated into sexual education. EC should be readily available for all adolescents,” they wrote.
The study was funded through a grant from the Society of Family Planning. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Fink GN et al. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.10.005.
This study was very well conducted and provides genuine insight into adolescents who access contraception and their views about the difference between emergency contraception and nonemergent contraception. It also highlights that we have so much more work to do, from a public health perspective, when it comes to educating youth about the efficacy of contraception. If young people who have easier access to emergency contraception still believe incorrect information, what about those people who have minimal access?
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is an associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the article by Fink et al.
This study was very well conducted and provides genuine insight into adolescents who access contraception and their views about the difference between emergency contraception and nonemergent contraception. It also highlights that we have so much more work to do, from a public health perspective, when it comes to educating youth about the efficacy of contraception. If young people who have easier access to emergency contraception still believe incorrect information, what about those people who have minimal access?
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is an associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the article by Fink et al.
This study was very well conducted and provides genuine insight into adolescents who access contraception and their views about the difference between emergency contraception and nonemergent contraception. It also highlights that we have so much more work to do, from a public health perspective, when it comes to educating youth about the efficacy of contraception. If young people who have easier access to emergency contraception still believe incorrect information, what about those people who have minimal access?
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is an associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the article by Fink et al.
Emergency contraception is perceived as “easy, effective, and discrete,” especially when compared with nonemergent contraception and condoms, according to a qualitative study of contraceptive behaviors and decision making among adolescent females who had previously used emergency contraception (EC) or planned to use it.
“Three main themes emerged from our interviews: There are multiple perceived benefits to using EC, nonemergent contraception (NEC) use is challenging, and the decision to use NEC is multifactorial,” lead author Geetha N. Fink, MD, MPH, and her coauthors wrote in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology.
The investigators reviewed interview transcripts and questionnaire responses from 28 adolescent females who had all used or were planning to use EC. The participants, who were recruited from school-based health centers (SBHC) in New York, reported having used EC a mean of 3.5 times (range 0-30 times), noted Dr. Fink of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and her colleagues.
SBHCs in New York can distribute EC for free and – once general consent to care at the SBHC is provided at the start of each school year– without parental notification. This ease of access contributed to EC use, along with its minimal side effects. EC also can “be used discretely without the involvement of the partner,” Dr. Fink and her coauthors noted. Although the majority of participants stated being comfortable discussing their EC use, “they still appreciated that EC does not require partner involvement or awareness, unlike condoms or withdrawal.”
The participants’ decision making often was influenced by misperception; 65% incorrectly stated that EC was 90%-99% effective, and NEC use was ascribed to beliefs that “excess EC decreases efficacy or is detrimental to health and social interactions.” At the same time, Dr. Fink and her colleagues found that NEC use was associated with participants who had more sexual experience or who correctly identified it as more effective than EC.
“Our findings suggest that as adolescents gained more experience with sex and counseling, and also matured, they appeared to be more likely to utilize NEC,” they wrote.
Dr. Fink and her associates shared limitations of their study, including the uniqueness of SBHCs in New York City in providing comprehensive health care options, compared with those in the rest of the United States. However, they also noted the value in interviewing adolescent EC users and therefore better understanding why they’ve made these contraceptive decisions.
“We suspect many more students would benefit from access to EC and the SBHC, but may be unaware of these resources. We recommend increased efforts to promote awareness of these resources in schools, especially incorporated into sexual education. EC should be readily available for all adolescents,” they wrote.
The study was funded through a grant from the Society of Family Planning. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Fink GN et al. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.10.005.
Emergency contraception is perceived as “easy, effective, and discrete,” especially when compared with nonemergent contraception and condoms, according to a qualitative study of contraceptive behaviors and decision making among adolescent females who had previously used emergency contraception (EC) or planned to use it.
“Three main themes emerged from our interviews: There are multiple perceived benefits to using EC, nonemergent contraception (NEC) use is challenging, and the decision to use NEC is multifactorial,” lead author Geetha N. Fink, MD, MPH, and her coauthors wrote in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology.
The investigators reviewed interview transcripts and questionnaire responses from 28 adolescent females who had all used or were planning to use EC. The participants, who were recruited from school-based health centers (SBHC) in New York, reported having used EC a mean of 3.5 times (range 0-30 times), noted Dr. Fink of the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and her colleagues.
SBHCs in New York can distribute EC for free and – once general consent to care at the SBHC is provided at the start of each school year– without parental notification. This ease of access contributed to EC use, along with its minimal side effects. EC also can “be used discretely without the involvement of the partner,” Dr. Fink and her coauthors noted. Although the majority of participants stated being comfortable discussing their EC use, “they still appreciated that EC does not require partner involvement or awareness, unlike condoms or withdrawal.”
The participants’ decision making often was influenced by misperception; 65% incorrectly stated that EC was 90%-99% effective, and NEC use was ascribed to beliefs that “excess EC decreases efficacy or is detrimental to health and social interactions.” At the same time, Dr. Fink and her colleagues found that NEC use was associated with participants who had more sexual experience or who correctly identified it as more effective than EC.
“Our findings suggest that as adolescents gained more experience with sex and counseling, and also matured, they appeared to be more likely to utilize NEC,” they wrote.
Dr. Fink and her associates shared limitations of their study, including the uniqueness of SBHCs in New York City in providing comprehensive health care options, compared with those in the rest of the United States. However, they also noted the value in interviewing adolescent EC users and therefore better understanding why they’ve made these contraceptive decisions.
“We suspect many more students would benefit from access to EC and the SBHC, but may be unaware of these resources. We recommend increased efforts to promote awareness of these resources in schools, especially incorporated into sexual education. EC should be readily available for all adolescents,” they wrote.
The study was funded through a grant from the Society of Family Planning. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Fink GN et al. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.10.005.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY
Key clinical point: 65% of adolescent females who were interviewed incorrectly believed that emergency contraception is 90%-99% effective.
Major finding: Adolescents who use emergency contraception prefer it over nonemergent contraception because it is perceived as easy to use and a more private alternative.
Study details: A study of 28 interviews of adolescent females who self-reported emergency contraception use.
Disclosures: The study was funded through a grant from the Society of Family Planning. No conflicts of interest were reported.
Source: Fink GN et al. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2018.10.005.
What’s the Impact of Osteoporosis in Multiple Myeloma?
Osteoporosis is common among patients with multiple myeloma (MM), in part because both largely affect older adults. And more than half of MM patients will have MM skeletal-related events, which are painful, and can lead to complications (such as spinal cord compression) and death.
But how does pre-existing bone disease contribute to clinical outcomes in MM? Osteoporosis is a “silent condition” and very little is known about its role in MM, say researchers from The Ohio State University in Columbus and University of Massachusetts in Worcester. The standard diagnostic evaluation for MM does not include dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, therefore assessments of underlying osteoporosis are not routine. Moreover, it is a challenge to distinguish osteoporotic fragility fractures from pathologic MM-induced fractures. Skeletal surveys underestimate bone involvement by about 40%, the researchers note, and are even less specific for distinguishing myeloma-related secondary osteoporosis from primary osteoporosis.
The researchers examined the relationship between the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and the risk of death in women who developed MM. They analyzed data from 161,808 women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). Of those, 409 developed MM; 362 had no history of cancer.
At baseline, 98 (27%) women had high FRAX scores, and 264 (73%) had low scores. The median follow-up period was 10.5 years from enrollment and 7.2 years from the time of MM diagnosis. Of the patients with MM, 226 died during the follow-up period, including 71 with high FRAX scores and 155 with low scores. MM mortality was higher among women with high FRAX scores: 72%, vs 59% of those with low scores. Poor bone health was associated with greater MM mortality but was not related to delay in time to diagnosis.
During the evaluation, 57 fractures were reported, 65% before MM diagnosis. Fewer than half of the women had a first fracture after diagnosis. The probability of fracture was similar among the women, regardless of FRAX score. Not surprisingly, older women with lower BMI were most at risk.
The WHI does not include information on staging, chemotherapy, or use of bisphosphonates. Therefore, the impact of bisphosphonates could not be determined in this study. The researchers also did not know how many patients might have had pre-existing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, a disorder in about 3% of the aging population that progresses to MM in 1% per year.
Source:
Rosko AE, Hade EM, Li W, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018;18(9):597-602.
Osteoporosis is common among patients with multiple myeloma (MM), in part because both largely affect older adults. And more than half of MM patients will have MM skeletal-related events, which are painful, and can lead to complications (such as spinal cord compression) and death.
But how does pre-existing bone disease contribute to clinical outcomes in MM? Osteoporosis is a “silent condition” and very little is known about its role in MM, say researchers from The Ohio State University in Columbus and University of Massachusetts in Worcester. The standard diagnostic evaluation for MM does not include dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, therefore assessments of underlying osteoporosis are not routine. Moreover, it is a challenge to distinguish osteoporotic fragility fractures from pathologic MM-induced fractures. Skeletal surveys underestimate bone involvement by about 40%, the researchers note, and are even less specific for distinguishing myeloma-related secondary osteoporosis from primary osteoporosis.
The researchers examined the relationship between the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and the risk of death in women who developed MM. They analyzed data from 161,808 women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). Of those, 409 developed MM; 362 had no history of cancer.
At baseline, 98 (27%) women had high FRAX scores, and 264 (73%) had low scores. The median follow-up period was 10.5 years from enrollment and 7.2 years from the time of MM diagnosis. Of the patients with MM, 226 died during the follow-up period, including 71 with high FRAX scores and 155 with low scores. MM mortality was higher among women with high FRAX scores: 72%, vs 59% of those with low scores. Poor bone health was associated with greater MM mortality but was not related to delay in time to diagnosis.
During the evaluation, 57 fractures were reported, 65% before MM diagnosis. Fewer than half of the women had a first fracture after diagnosis. The probability of fracture was similar among the women, regardless of FRAX score. Not surprisingly, older women with lower BMI were most at risk.
The WHI does not include information on staging, chemotherapy, or use of bisphosphonates. Therefore, the impact of bisphosphonates could not be determined in this study. The researchers also did not know how many patients might have had pre-existing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, a disorder in about 3% of the aging population that progresses to MM in 1% per year.
Source:
Rosko AE, Hade EM, Li W, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018;18(9):597-602.
Osteoporosis is common among patients with multiple myeloma (MM), in part because both largely affect older adults. And more than half of MM patients will have MM skeletal-related events, which are painful, and can lead to complications (such as spinal cord compression) and death.
But how does pre-existing bone disease contribute to clinical outcomes in MM? Osteoporosis is a “silent condition” and very little is known about its role in MM, say researchers from The Ohio State University in Columbus and University of Massachusetts in Worcester. The standard diagnostic evaluation for MM does not include dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, therefore assessments of underlying osteoporosis are not routine. Moreover, it is a challenge to distinguish osteoporotic fragility fractures from pathologic MM-induced fractures. Skeletal surveys underestimate bone involvement by about 40%, the researchers note, and are even less specific for distinguishing myeloma-related secondary osteoporosis from primary osteoporosis.
The researchers examined the relationship between the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and the risk of death in women who developed MM. They analyzed data from 161,808 women in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). Of those, 409 developed MM; 362 had no history of cancer.
At baseline, 98 (27%) women had high FRAX scores, and 264 (73%) had low scores. The median follow-up period was 10.5 years from enrollment and 7.2 years from the time of MM diagnosis. Of the patients with MM, 226 died during the follow-up period, including 71 with high FRAX scores and 155 with low scores. MM mortality was higher among women with high FRAX scores: 72%, vs 59% of those with low scores. Poor bone health was associated with greater MM mortality but was not related to delay in time to diagnosis.
During the evaluation, 57 fractures were reported, 65% before MM diagnosis. Fewer than half of the women had a first fracture after diagnosis. The probability of fracture was similar among the women, regardless of FRAX score. Not surprisingly, older women with lower BMI were most at risk.
The WHI does not include information on staging, chemotherapy, or use of bisphosphonates. Therefore, the impact of bisphosphonates could not be determined in this study. The researchers also did not know how many patients might have had pre-existing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, a disorder in about 3% of the aging population that progresses to MM in 1% per year.
Source:
Rosko AE, Hade EM, Li W, et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2018;18(9):597-602.
Why is loxapine overlooked, underprescribed for psychosis?
I have always tried to practice common sense psychiatry, however, sometimes it seems I am alone in this pursuit. My best example is the minimal prescribing of loxapine (Adasuve) for treating the problem of psychosis, most notably schizophrenia.
Mind you, neither I nor anyone in family own stock in any pharmaceutical companies. I don’t lecture for them, so I have no conflicts in writing about this observation – which I hope will improve patient care, thereby saving lives and making a difference.
Everyone should be familiar with the evolution of atypical antipsychotics and how these medications are touted as “second-generation” classes of medication advertised as superior to the older, first-generation antipsychotics. However, as we get more experience with the second-generation atypical antipsychotics, we are learning that they have problematic side effects of their own. For example, they are associated with metabolic syndrome, so they cause weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes. Maybe these problems are so endemic in the low-income, African American population I treat that I am overly sensitive to trying to prevent these medical disorders while treating a patient’s mental illness. However, my public health leanings have long caused me to think that low-income African Americans are the canary in America’s health status coal mine, as it seems that what hits this group first eventually will hit the majority population. Accordingly, it seems to me that it is well advised to pay attention to this group’s well-being, physical health, and mental health challenges.
Everyone also should be aware that clozapine (Clozaril) had been dubbed the first atypical antipsychotic. But, in some regard, that designation might be given to thioridazine – although some maintain that the ratio of serotonergic to dopamine effects is not strong enough to earn that title. Unfortunately, both thioridazine and clozapine have serious side effects. Thioridazine is associated with severe cardiac arrhythmias, and clozapine has been associated with the aforementioned side effects of atypical antipsychotics but also can cause life-threatening agranulocytosis, necessitating regular white blood cell counts to monitor for this possibility.
, which belongs class of medication known as dibenzodiazepines – a class that is extraordinarily similar to dibenzoxazepine. The late William Glazer, MD, a distinguished psychopharmacologist long affiliated with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., even suggested that loxapine might behave as an atypical antipsychotic (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 10:42-6). Extensive clinical experience with loxapine suggests the same but with some key differences from the standard atypical antipsychotics regarding its side-effect profile.
First, loxapine, despite being chemically related to clozapine, does not cause agranulocytosis, so the need for white blood cell monitoring is not necessary. Second, I have not seen the problematic metabolic syndrome caused by standard atypical antipsychotic medication. It amazes me when I see patients on aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone who also have diabetes and are on metformin – especially when the development of the patients’ diabetes can be traced back to when they were put on an atypical antipsychotic. I often find myself taking patients off their atypical antipsychotic and putting them on loxapine, resulting in gradual weight loss while maintaining the patients’ stable mental status and absence of psychotic symptoms.
It seems to me that if clozapine and loxapine are so similar (they both bind to serotonin and dopamine receptors), loxapine should be the first drug of choice for the treatment of psychotic symptoms. It acts like an atypical but without the problems of weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes that the atypicals may cause. Most of the hundreds of patients with psychotic symptoms I have treated over the past 40 years are on the low dose of loxapine 25 mg at bedtime (although the prescribing information on loxapine says it has to be given at least twice a day, as the half life of the medication is only 4 hours). In some rare instances, I prescribe a total of 50 mg at bedtime.
So, not prescribing loxapine does not make sense to me – other than the medication is generic and so it is not being marketed aggressively by people who make money from prescribing medication and are practicing money, not medicine. The other possibility is that most psychiatrists might not know the connection between clozapine and loxapine, so I thought I should use my influence (what little I have) to inform.
Dr. Bell is staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s surgical-medical/psychiatric inpatient unit in Chicago; and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Windsor University, St. Kitts. He also is clinical professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (the birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago.
I have always tried to practice common sense psychiatry, however, sometimes it seems I am alone in this pursuit. My best example is the minimal prescribing of loxapine (Adasuve) for treating the problem of psychosis, most notably schizophrenia.
Mind you, neither I nor anyone in family own stock in any pharmaceutical companies. I don’t lecture for them, so I have no conflicts in writing about this observation – which I hope will improve patient care, thereby saving lives and making a difference.
Everyone should be familiar with the evolution of atypical antipsychotics and how these medications are touted as “second-generation” classes of medication advertised as superior to the older, first-generation antipsychotics. However, as we get more experience with the second-generation atypical antipsychotics, we are learning that they have problematic side effects of their own. For example, they are associated with metabolic syndrome, so they cause weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes. Maybe these problems are so endemic in the low-income, African American population I treat that I am overly sensitive to trying to prevent these medical disorders while treating a patient’s mental illness. However, my public health leanings have long caused me to think that low-income African Americans are the canary in America’s health status coal mine, as it seems that what hits this group first eventually will hit the majority population. Accordingly, it seems to me that it is well advised to pay attention to this group’s well-being, physical health, and mental health challenges.
Everyone also should be aware that clozapine (Clozaril) had been dubbed the first atypical antipsychotic. But, in some regard, that designation might be given to thioridazine – although some maintain that the ratio of serotonergic to dopamine effects is not strong enough to earn that title. Unfortunately, both thioridazine and clozapine have serious side effects. Thioridazine is associated with severe cardiac arrhythmias, and clozapine has been associated with the aforementioned side effects of atypical antipsychotics but also can cause life-threatening agranulocytosis, necessitating regular white blood cell counts to monitor for this possibility.
, which belongs class of medication known as dibenzodiazepines – a class that is extraordinarily similar to dibenzoxazepine. The late William Glazer, MD, a distinguished psychopharmacologist long affiliated with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., even suggested that loxapine might behave as an atypical antipsychotic (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 10:42-6). Extensive clinical experience with loxapine suggests the same but with some key differences from the standard atypical antipsychotics regarding its side-effect profile.
First, loxapine, despite being chemically related to clozapine, does not cause agranulocytosis, so the need for white blood cell monitoring is not necessary. Second, I have not seen the problematic metabolic syndrome caused by standard atypical antipsychotic medication. It amazes me when I see patients on aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone who also have diabetes and are on metformin – especially when the development of the patients’ diabetes can be traced back to when they were put on an atypical antipsychotic. I often find myself taking patients off their atypical antipsychotic and putting them on loxapine, resulting in gradual weight loss while maintaining the patients’ stable mental status and absence of psychotic symptoms.
It seems to me that if clozapine and loxapine are so similar (they both bind to serotonin and dopamine receptors), loxapine should be the first drug of choice for the treatment of psychotic symptoms. It acts like an atypical but without the problems of weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes that the atypicals may cause. Most of the hundreds of patients with psychotic symptoms I have treated over the past 40 years are on the low dose of loxapine 25 mg at bedtime (although the prescribing information on loxapine says it has to be given at least twice a day, as the half life of the medication is only 4 hours). In some rare instances, I prescribe a total of 50 mg at bedtime.
So, not prescribing loxapine does not make sense to me – other than the medication is generic and so it is not being marketed aggressively by people who make money from prescribing medication and are practicing money, not medicine. The other possibility is that most psychiatrists might not know the connection between clozapine and loxapine, so I thought I should use my influence (what little I have) to inform.
Dr. Bell is staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s surgical-medical/psychiatric inpatient unit in Chicago; and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Windsor University, St. Kitts. He also is clinical professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (the birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago.
I have always tried to practice common sense psychiatry, however, sometimes it seems I am alone in this pursuit. My best example is the minimal prescribing of loxapine (Adasuve) for treating the problem of psychosis, most notably schizophrenia.
Mind you, neither I nor anyone in family own stock in any pharmaceutical companies. I don’t lecture for them, so I have no conflicts in writing about this observation – which I hope will improve patient care, thereby saving lives and making a difference.
Everyone should be familiar with the evolution of atypical antipsychotics and how these medications are touted as “second-generation” classes of medication advertised as superior to the older, first-generation antipsychotics. However, as we get more experience with the second-generation atypical antipsychotics, we are learning that they have problematic side effects of their own. For example, they are associated with metabolic syndrome, so they cause weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes. Maybe these problems are so endemic in the low-income, African American population I treat that I am overly sensitive to trying to prevent these medical disorders while treating a patient’s mental illness. However, my public health leanings have long caused me to think that low-income African Americans are the canary in America’s health status coal mine, as it seems that what hits this group first eventually will hit the majority population. Accordingly, it seems to me that it is well advised to pay attention to this group’s well-being, physical health, and mental health challenges.
Everyone also should be aware that clozapine (Clozaril) had been dubbed the first atypical antipsychotic. But, in some regard, that designation might be given to thioridazine – although some maintain that the ratio of serotonergic to dopamine effects is not strong enough to earn that title. Unfortunately, both thioridazine and clozapine have serious side effects. Thioridazine is associated with severe cardiac arrhythmias, and clozapine has been associated with the aforementioned side effects of atypical antipsychotics but also can cause life-threatening agranulocytosis, necessitating regular white blood cell counts to monitor for this possibility.
, which belongs class of medication known as dibenzodiazepines – a class that is extraordinarily similar to dibenzoxazepine. The late William Glazer, MD, a distinguished psychopharmacologist long affiliated with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., even suggested that loxapine might behave as an atypical antipsychotic (J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60 Suppl 10:42-6). Extensive clinical experience with loxapine suggests the same but with some key differences from the standard atypical antipsychotics regarding its side-effect profile.
First, loxapine, despite being chemically related to clozapine, does not cause agranulocytosis, so the need for white blood cell monitoring is not necessary. Second, I have not seen the problematic metabolic syndrome caused by standard atypical antipsychotic medication. It amazes me when I see patients on aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone who also have diabetes and are on metformin – especially when the development of the patients’ diabetes can be traced back to when they were put on an atypical antipsychotic. I often find myself taking patients off their atypical antipsychotic and putting them on loxapine, resulting in gradual weight loss while maintaining the patients’ stable mental status and absence of psychotic symptoms.
It seems to me that if clozapine and loxapine are so similar (they both bind to serotonin and dopamine receptors), loxapine should be the first drug of choice for the treatment of psychotic symptoms. It acts like an atypical but without the problems of weight gain, hyperglycemia, increased risk of stroke, sudden cardiac death, blood clots, and diabetes that the atypicals may cause. Most of the hundreds of patients with psychotic symptoms I have treated over the past 40 years are on the low dose of loxapine 25 mg at bedtime (although the prescribing information on loxapine says it has to be given at least twice a day, as the half life of the medication is only 4 hours). In some rare instances, I prescribe a total of 50 mg at bedtime.
So, not prescribing loxapine does not make sense to me – other than the medication is generic and so it is not being marketed aggressively by people who make money from prescribing medication and are practicing money, not medicine. The other possibility is that most psychiatrists might not know the connection between clozapine and loxapine, so I thought I should use my influence (what little I have) to inform.
Dr. Bell is staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s surgical-medical/psychiatric inpatient unit in Chicago; and chairman of the department of psychiatry at Windsor University, St. Kitts. He also is clinical professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago; former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council; and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (the birthplace of child psychiatry), all in Chicago.
United States must join with world to protect refugee children
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
ORLANDO – The United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet it does not always stand with the rest of the global community in promoting universally accepted principles on the health and well-being of children across the world, particularly refugee children, according to Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD.
In an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Rushton discussed the importance of seeing American exceptionalism for what it is – a flaw rather than a virtue – and joining with the rest of the world in upholding the tenets of the Budapest Declaration On the Rights, Health and Well-being of Children and Youth on the Move.
In the three-page Budapest document, created by the International Society for Social Pediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) in October 2017 and endorsed by the AAP, pediatricians from across the world acknowledge the realities of worldwide refugee crises and accept their detailed responsibilities in meeting and advocating for those children’s needs.
Although the current administration’s decision earlier this year to split children from their families at the border caught everyone attention, . He particularly stressed the “importance of working with the global community on clinical services, programs and policy.”
Dr. Rushton, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and medical director of the Quality Through Innovation in Pediatrics network, also discussed the need to commit to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to join the global community in following the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the principles in the World Health Organization’s publication, “Nurturing care for early childhood development.”
The former is a “blueprint” to overcoming challenges related to “poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation, prosperity and peace and justice” by achieving targets by 2030, and the latter is “a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential.”
“This is our issue as child health professionals. We need to continue applying pressure on our political leaders,” Dr. Rushton told his colleagues. He advocated taking the long view: “Let’s build a system that respects the human rights of all children.”
REPORTING FROM AAP 2018
Physical activity tied to lower depression risk among older adults
Meeting World Health Organization recommendations for levels of physical activity reduces the odds of prevalent depression by 40%, according to a study of more than 4,000 adults aged 50 years and older.
“To [our] knowledge, this is the first prospective cohort study to examine the protective effect of meeting [moderate to vigorous physical activity] guidelines, and different volumes of walking, on depression among a sample of adults,” Cillian P. McDowell, of the University of Limerick (Ireland), and his associates wrote in Experimental Gerontology.
The study drew on data from The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing and included 4,556 individuals, 56.7% of whom were female. The investigators created “dose categories” based on how much exercise participants performed each week. For moderate to vigorous physical activity, they assigned participants to low (0 to less than 600 metabolic equivalent [MET]–minutes per week), moderate (600 to less than 1,200 MET-min/week), and high (1,200 or more MET-min/week) categories. For walking, investigators divided participants among tertiles of minutes performed (0-110 min/week, 120-400 min/week, and 420 or more min/week). Symptoms of depression were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, reported Mr. McDowell and his associates.
The odds of prevalent depression were 40% lower (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.76) among participants who met the physical activity guidelines, 23% lower (OR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.21) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, and 43% lower (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote.
The study was not conducted to explore possible mechanisms underlying the ties between physical activity and depression. However, Mr. McDowell and his associates speculated that exercise training has both brain monoaminergic and neurotropic effects and might lower “inflammatory and oxidant markers. Further, physical activity may be associated with depression through psychological factors such as self-esteem.”
Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote. “Recent evidence has shown that people with [major depressive disorder] engage in higher levels of sedentary behavior, and that cross-sectionally sedentary behavior, is positively associated with depression,” they added. “Meeting WHO recommended [physical activity] levels could be recommended ... to prevent the onset of depression.”
The investigators pointed out that one of the major limitations of the study was that participants’ depression and activity were self-reported, which could predispose results to over- or underreporting. They also pointed out that a strength of the study was its large sample size.
Mr. McDowell and his associates reported no conflicts of interest. The sponsors of The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing played no role in this study’s design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation.
SOURCE: McDowell CP et al. Exp Gerontol. 2018 Oct 2;112:68-75.
Meeting World Health Organization recommendations for levels of physical activity reduces the odds of prevalent depression by 40%, according to a study of more than 4,000 adults aged 50 years and older.
“To [our] knowledge, this is the first prospective cohort study to examine the protective effect of meeting [moderate to vigorous physical activity] guidelines, and different volumes of walking, on depression among a sample of adults,” Cillian P. McDowell, of the University of Limerick (Ireland), and his associates wrote in Experimental Gerontology.
The study drew on data from The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing and included 4,556 individuals, 56.7% of whom were female. The investigators created “dose categories” based on how much exercise participants performed each week. For moderate to vigorous physical activity, they assigned participants to low (0 to less than 600 metabolic equivalent [MET]–minutes per week), moderate (600 to less than 1,200 MET-min/week), and high (1,200 or more MET-min/week) categories. For walking, investigators divided participants among tertiles of minutes performed (0-110 min/week, 120-400 min/week, and 420 or more min/week). Symptoms of depression were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, reported Mr. McDowell and his associates.
The odds of prevalent depression were 40% lower (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.76) among participants who met the physical activity guidelines, 23% lower (OR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.21) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, and 43% lower (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote.
The study was not conducted to explore possible mechanisms underlying the ties between physical activity and depression. However, Mr. McDowell and his associates speculated that exercise training has both brain monoaminergic and neurotropic effects and might lower “inflammatory and oxidant markers. Further, physical activity may be associated with depression through psychological factors such as self-esteem.”
Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote. “Recent evidence has shown that people with [major depressive disorder] engage in higher levels of sedentary behavior, and that cross-sectionally sedentary behavior, is positively associated with depression,” they added. “Meeting WHO recommended [physical activity] levels could be recommended ... to prevent the onset of depression.”
The investigators pointed out that one of the major limitations of the study was that participants’ depression and activity were self-reported, which could predispose results to over- or underreporting. They also pointed out that a strength of the study was its large sample size.
Mr. McDowell and his associates reported no conflicts of interest. The sponsors of The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing played no role in this study’s design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation.
SOURCE: McDowell CP et al. Exp Gerontol. 2018 Oct 2;112:68-75.
Meeting World Health Organization recommendations for levels of physical activity reduces the odds of prevalent depression by 40%, according to a study of more than 4,000 adults aged 50 years and older.
“To [our] knowledge, this is the first prospective cohort study to examine the protective effect of meeting [moderate to vigorous physical activity] guidelines, and different volumes of walking, on depression among a sample of adults,” Cillian P. McDowell, of the University of Limerick (Ireland), and his associates wrote in Experimental Gerontology.
The study drew on data from The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing and included 4,556 individuals, 56.7% of whom were female. The investigators created “dose categories” based on how much exercise participants performed each week. For moderate to vigorous physical activity, they assigned participants to low (0 to less than 600 metabolic equivalent [MET]–minutes per week), moderate (600 to less than 1,200 MET-min/week), and high (1,200 or more MET-min/week) categories. For walking, investigators divided participants among tertiles of minutes performed (0-110 min/week, 120-400 min/week, and 420 or more min/week). Symptoms of depression were assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, reported Mr. McDowell and his associates.
The odds of prevalent depression were 40% lower (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.76) among participants who met the physical activity guidelines, 23% lower (OR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.21) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, and 43% lower (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73) among those who were in the moderate and high categories, Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote.
The study was not conducted to explore possible mechanisms underlying the ties between physical activity and depression. However, Mr. McDowell and his associates speculated that exercise training has both brain monoaminergic and neurotropic effects and might lower “inflammatory and oxidant markers. Further, physical activity may be associated with depression through psychological factors such as self-esteem.”
Mr. McDowell and his associates wrote. “Recent evidence has shown that people with [major depressive disorder] engage in higher levels of sedentary behavior, and that cross-sectionally sedentary behavior, is positively associated with depression,” they added. “Meeting WHO recommended [physical activity] levels could be recommended ... to prevent the onset of depression.”
The investigators pointed out that one of the major limitations of the study was that participants’ depression and activity were self-reported, which could predispose results to over- or underreporting. They also pointed out that a strength of the study was its large sample size.
Mr. McDowell and his associates reported no conflicts of interest. The sponsors of The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing played no role in this study’s design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation.
SOURCE: McDowell CP et al. Exp Gerontol. 2018 Oct 2;112:68-75.
FROM EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
Midterm election boosts Medicaid expansion, but challenges remain
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Antimigraine agents in pregnancy and lactation
Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder with episodic attacks of throbbing headache, nausea/vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. Migraine symptoms will lessen in up to 70% of pregnant women, usually during the second and third trimesters, but will worsen in 4%-8%, and new-onset migraine may account for as many as 16% of all cases of the disorder in pregnancy.
Prevention of migraines
A 2002 review by Goadsby PJ et al. (N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 24;346[4]:257-70) identified 11 drugs or drug classes for the prevention of migraine attacks. Four agents that are available in the United States were thought to have proven efficacy or were well accepted: metoprolol, propranolol, amitriptyline, and valproate. Valproate should not be used during pregnancy because it is a known teratogen and can cause other fetal problems throughout gestation. Metoprolol, a cardioselective beta-blocker, is a risk for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in the second/third trimesters.
Three other agents are not available in the United States: flunarizine (an agent with calcium channel blocking activity) and two serotonin antagonists, pizotifen and methysergide (a semisynthetic ergot alkaloid). Based on the drug class, flunarizine probably is compatible with pregnancy. Ergot alkaloids, including methysergide, are contraindicated in pregnancy.
Verapamil (Calan, Isoptin) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were widely used, but the reviewers concluded that there was poor evidence of benefit.
Use of the SSRI antidepressants in the third trimester may cause newborn toxicity.
Only amitriptyline, verapamil, and low-dose propranolol (30-40 mg/day) have sufficient data to classify as compatible throughout pregnancy, but higher doses of propranolol may cause IUGR and other fetal/neonatal toxicity.
Two agents, gabapentin (Neurontin) and topiramate (Topamax), were considered promising agents for migraine prophylaxis. However, topiramate is best avoided in pregnancy. There are inadequate human data to assess the risk of gabapentin and topiramate, therefore both agents should be avoided in the first trimester.
Breastfeeding: Prevention therapy
Based on their potential for harm, topiramate and valproate should not be used during breastfeeding. All of the other drugs probably are compatible with breastfeeding, but the nursing infant should be monitored for adverse effects common in nonpregnant adults.
Acute treatment of migraines
There are 11 single-agent drugs that are indicated for the acute treatment of migraine.
Almotriptan (Axert) is available as an oral tablet. There are no human pregnancy data and the animal data suggest low risk. However, there is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Dihydroergotamine (Migranal, D.H.E. 45) is available for injection and nasal spray. It is contraindicated, especially near term (it has oxytocic properties), and the animal data suggest risk of IUGR.
Eletriptan (Relpax) is an oral tablet. There are no human data and the animal data suggest low risk. There is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Ergotamine (Ergomar), an oral tablet, is contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding (see above and below).
Methysergide (Sansert) is contraindicated but is not available in United States.
Frovatriptan (Frova) has no human pregnancy data. The animal data suggests low risk but there is the possibility of preterm birth.
There are 93 cases in pregnancy for naratriptan (Amerge) but none during breastfeeding. The drug did not cause major defects in animals but did produce dose-related embryo and fetal development toxicity. In addition, the data did suggest a possible increase in preterm births.
For the rizatriptan (Maxalt, Maxalt-MLT) tablet, animal data suggest low risk. There was exposure to the drug in more than 81 human pregnancy cases. Although there was no evidence of birth defects, the data raised the concern of preterm birth.
There is no evidence that sumatriptan (Alsuma, Imitrex, Imitrex Statdose, Sumavel DosePro, Zecuity) is a human teratogen but there is a possible increase in preterm birth. The drug was teratogenic in one animal species. This agent is available as a tablet and for injection.
There is no human pregnancy data for zolmitriptan (Zomig; Zomig-ZMT) but, as with all triptans, there is a possible risk of preterm birth. The animal data suggest low risk. It is available as an oral tablet.
There are three multiagent products that can be used to treat migraines. There are no published human pregnancy data for these combination products. The combination oral drug sumatriptan and naproxen (Treximet) is best avoided in pregnancy because first trimester exposure to the NSAID naproxen may cause embryo-fetal harm (structural anomalies and abortion) or close to term (premature closure of the ductus arteriosus) and other newborn toxicities.
Caffeine and ergotamine (Cafergot, Migergot) tablets should be considered contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding. Although small, infrequent doses of this product do not appear to be fetotoxic or teratogenic, idiosyncratic responses may occur with ergotamine that endanger the fetus.
The third product, acetaminophen, dichloralphenazone, and isometheptene (Epidrin, LarkaDrin, Migragesic IDA) is an over-the-counter tablet. It does not appear to be related to embryo-fetal harm, but its effectiveness is unknown.
Breastfeeding: Acute treatment
Consistent with their relatively low molecular weights, all of the acute treatment agents most likely are excreted into breast milk. With the exception of the two ergotamine products, both of which should be considered contraindicated, all of the other agents probably are compatible during breastfeeding.
Summary
Migraine headaches are common but can be prevented and/or treated safely in pregnancy and when nursing. In addition to the review mentioned above, three other reviews are well worth reading: Becker WJ. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015 Aug;21(4 Headache):953-72; Becker WJ. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):778-93; Hutchinson S et al. Headache. 2013 Apr;53(4):614-27.
Mr. Briggs is a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder with episodic attacks of throbbing headache, nausea/vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. Migraine symptoms will lessen in up to 70% of pregnant women, usually during the second and third trimesters, but will worsen in 4%-8%, and new-onset migraine may account for as many as 16% of all cases of the disorder in pregnancy.
Prevention of migraines
A 2002 review by Goadsby PJ et al. (N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 24;346[4]:257-70) identified 11 drugs or drug classes for the prevention of migraine attacks. Four agents that are available in the United States were thought to have proven efficacy or were well accepted: metoprolol, propranolol, amitriptyline, and valproate. Valproate should not be used during pregnancy because it is a known teratogen and can cause other fetal problems throughout gestation. Metoprolol, a cardioselective beta-blocker, is a risk for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in the second/third trimesters.
Three other agents are not available in the United States: flunarizine (an agent with calcium channel blocking activity) and two serotonin antagonists, pizotifen and methysergide (a semisynthetic ergot alkaloid). Based on the drug class, flunarizine probably is compatible with pregnancy. Ergot alkaloids, including methysergide, are contraindicated in pregnancy.
Verapamil (Calan, Isoptin) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were widely used, but the reviewers concluded that there was poor evidence of benefit.
Use of the SSRI antidepressants in the third trimester may cause newborn toxicity.
Only amitriptyline, verapamil, and low-dose propranolol (30-40 mg/day) have sufficient data to classify as compatible throughout pregnancy, but higher doses of propranolol may cause IUGR and other fetal/neonatal toxicity.
Two agents, gabapentin (Neurontin) and topiramate (Topamax), were considered promising agents for migraine prophylaxis. However, topiramate is best avoided in pregnancy. There are inadequate human data to assess the risk of gabapentin and topiramate, therefore both agents should be avoided in the first trimester.
Breastfeeding: Prevention therapy
Based on their potential for harm, topiramate and valproate should not be used during breastfeeding. All of the other drugs probably are compatible with breastfeeding, but the nursing infant should be monitored for adverse effects common in nonpregnant adults.
Acute treatment of migraines
There are 11 single-agent drugs that are indicated for the acute treatment of migraine.
Almotriptan (Axert) is available as an oral tablet. There are no human pregnancy data and the animal data suggest low risk. However, there is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Dihydroergotamine (Migranal, D.H.E. 45) is available for injection and nasal spray. It is contraindicated, especially near term (it has oxytocic properties), and the animal data suggest risk of IUGR.
Eletriptan (Relpax) is an oral tablet. There are no human data and the animal data suggest low risk. There is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Ergotamine (Ergomar), an oral tablet, is contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding (see above and below).
Methysergide (Sansert) is contraindicated but is not available in United States.
Frovatriptan (Frova) has no human pregnancy data. The animal data suggests low risk but there is the possibility of preterm birth.
There are 93 cases in pregnancy for naratriptan (Amerge) but none during breastfeeding. The drug did not cause major defects in animals but did produce dose-related embryo and fetal development toxicity. In addition, the data did suggest a possible increase in preterm births.
For the rizatriptan (Maxalt, Maxalt-MLT) tablet, animal data suggest low risk. There was exposure to the drug in more than 81 human pregnancy cases. Although there was no evidence of birth defects, the data raised the concern of preterm birth.
There is no evidence that sumatriptan (Alsuma, Imitrex, Imitrex Statdose, Sumavel DosePro, Zecuity) is a human teratogen but there is a possible increase in preterm birth. The drug was teratogenic in one animal species. This agent is available as a tablet and for injection.
There is no human pregnancy data for zolmitriptan (Zomig; Zomig-ZMT) but, as with all triptans, there is a possible risk of preterm birth. The animal data suggest low risk. It is available as an oral tablet.
There are three multiagent products that can be used to treat migraines. There are no published human pregnancy data for these combination products. The combination oral drug sumatriptan and naproxen (Treximet) is best avoided in pregnancy because first trimester exposure to the NSAID naproxen may cause embryo-fetal harm (structural anomalies and abortion) or close to term (premature closure of the ductus arteriosus) and other newborn toxicities.
Caffeine and ergotamine (Cafergot, Migergot) tablets should be considered contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding. Although small, infrequent doses of this product do not appear to be fetotoxic or teratogenic, idiosyncratic responses may occur with ergotamine that endanger the fetus.
The third product, acetaminophen, dichloralphenazone, and isometheptene (Epidrin, LarkaDrin, Migragesic IDA) is an over-the-counter tablet. It does not appear to be related to embryo-fetal harm, but its effectiveness is unknown.
Breastfeeding: Acute treatment
Consistent with their relatively low molecular weights, all of the acute treatment agents most likely are excreted into breast milk. With the exception of the two ergotamine products, both of which should be considered contraindicated, all of the other agents probably are compatible during breastfeeding.
Summary
Migraine headaches are common but can be prevented and/or treated safely in pregnancy and when nursing. In addition to the review mentioned above, three other reviews are well worth reading: Becker WJ. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015 Aug;21(4 Headache):953-72; Becker WJ. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):778-93; Hutchinson S et al. Headache. 2013 Apr;53(4):614-27.
Mr. Briggs is a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder with episodic attacks of throbbing headache, nausea/vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. Migraine symptoms will lessen in up to 70% of pregnant women, usually during the second and third trimesters, but will worsen in 4%-8%, and new-onset migraine may account for as many as 16% of all cases of the disorder in pregnancy.
Prevention of migraines
A 2002 review by Goadsby PJ et al. (N Engl J Med. 2002 Jan 24;346[4]:257-70) identified 11 drugs or drug classes for the prevention of migraine attacks. Four agents that are available in the United States were thought to have proven efficacy or were well accepted: metoprolol, propranolol, amitriptyline, and valproate. Valproate should not be used during pregnancy because it is a known teratogen and can cause other fetal problems throughout gestation. Metoprolol, a cardioselective beta-blocker, is a risk for intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) in the second/third trimesters.
Three other agents are not available in the United States: flunarizine (an agent with calcium channel blocking activity) and two serotonin antagonists, pizotifen and methysergide (a semisynthetic ergot alkaloid). Based on the drug class, flunarizine probably is compatible with pregnancy. Ergot alkaloids, including methysergide, are contraindicated in pregnancy.
Verapamil (Calan, Isoptin) and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were widely used, but the reviewers concluded that there was poor evidence of benefit.
Use of the SSRI antidepressants in the third trimester may cause newborn toxicity.
Only amitriptyline, verapamil, and low-dose propranolol (30-40 mg/day) have sufficient data to classify as compatible throughout pregnancy, but higher doses of propranolol may cause IUGR and other fetal/neonatal toxicity.
Two agents, gabapentin (Neurontin) and topiramate (Topamax), were considered promising agents for migraine prophylaxis. However, topiramate is best avoided in pregnancy. There are inadequate human data to assess the risk of gabapentin and topiramate, therefore both agents should be avoided in the first trimester.
Breastfeeding: Prevention therapy
Based on their potential for harm, topiramate and valproate should not be used during breastfeeding. All of the other drugs probably are compatible with breastfeeding, but the nursing infant should be monitored for adverse effects common in nonpregnant adults.
Acute treatment of migraines
There are 11 single-agent drugs that are indicated for the acute treatment of migraine.
Almotriptan (Axert) is available as an oral tablet. There are no human pregnancy data and the animal data suggest low risk. However, there is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Dihydroergotamine (Migranal, D.H.E. 45) is available for injection and nasal spray. It is contraindicated, especially near term (it has oxytocic properties), and the animal data suggest risk of IUGR.
Eletriptan (Relpax) is an oral tablet. There are no human data and the animal data suggest low risk. There is a possible risk of preterm birth.
Ergotamine (Ergomar), an oral tablet, is contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding (see above and below).
Methysergide (Sansert) is contraindicated but is not available in United States.
Frovatriptan (Frova) has no human pregnancy data. The animal data suggests low risk but there is the possibility of preterm birth.
There are 93 cases in pregnancy for naratriptan (Amerge) but none during breastfeeding. The drug did not cause major defects in animals but did produce dose-related embryo and fetal development toxicity. In addition, the data did suggest a possible increase in preterm births.
For the rizatriptan (Maxalt, Maxalt-MLT) tablet, animal data suggest low risk. There was exposure to the drug in more than 81 human pregnancy cases. Although there was no evidence of birth defects, the data raised the concern of preterm birth.
There is no evidence that sumatriptan (Alsuma, Imitrex, Imitrex Statdose, Sumavel DosePro, Zecuity) is a human teratogen but there is a possible increase in preterm birth. The drug was teratogenic in one animal species. This agent is available as a tablet and for injection.
There is no human pregnancy data for zolmitriptan (Zomig; Zomig-ZMT) but, as with all triptans, there is a possible risk of preterm birth. The animal data suggest low risk. It is available as an oral tablet.
There are three multiagent products that can be used to treat migraines. There are no published human pregnancy data for these combination products. The combination oral drug sumatriptan and naproxen (Treximet) is best avoided in pregnancy because first trimester exposure to the NSAID naproxen may cause embryo-fetal harm (structural anomalies and abortion) or close to term (premature closure of the ductus arteriosus) and other newborn toxicities.
Caffeine and ergotamine (Cafergot, Migergot) tablets should be considered contraindicated in pregnancy and breastfeeding. Although small, infrequent doses of this product do not appear to be fetotoxic or teratogenic, idiosyncratic responses may occur with ergotamine that endanger the fetus.
The third product, acetaminophen, dichloralphenazone, and isometheptene (Epidrin, LarkaDrin, Migragesic IDA) is an over-the-counter tablet. It does not appear to be related to embryo-fetal harm, but its effectiveness is unknown.
Breastfeeding: Acute treatment
Consistent with their relatively low molecular weights, all of the acute treatment agents most likely are excreted into breast milk. With the exception of the two ergotamine products, both of which should be considered contraindicated, all of the other agents probably are compatible during breastfeeding.
Summary
Migraine headaches are common but can be prevented and/or treated safely in pregnancy and when nursing. In addition to the review mentioned above, three other reviews are well worth reading: Becker WJ. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2015 Aug;21(4 Headache):953-72; Becker WJ. Headache. 2015 Jun;55(6):778-93; Hutchinson S et al. Headache. 2013 Apr;53(4):614-27.
Mr. Briggs is a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Portable hematology analyzer gets FDA nod
The Food and Drug Administration has granted .
HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.
HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.
Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).
“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.
HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.
HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted .
HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.
HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.
Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).
“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.
HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.
HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted .
HemoScreen requires a single drop of blood and uses disposable cartridges that provide automatic sample preparation.
HemoScreen can analyze 20 standard complete blood count parameters and produces results within 5 minutes.
Study results suggested that HemoScreen provides results comparable to those of another hematology analyzer, Sysmex XE-2100 (J Clin Pathol. 2016 Aug;69[8]:720-5).
“The HemoScreen delivers lab accurate results,” Avishay Bransky, PhD, CEO of PixCell, said in a statement.
HemoScreen “would be especially useful” in physicians’ offices, emergency rooms, intensive care units, oncology clinics, and remote locations, he added.
HemoScreen makes use of a technology called viscoelastic focusing, which employs microfluidics and machine vision algorithms to analyze cells.